EXTRACT 


FROM 


THE  ANNUAL   ADDRESS 


or  THE 


RT.  REV.  THOMAS  ATKINSON,  D.  D., 


TO   THE 


ftlritli^i  $t  111  Hi  0  m 

OF 

NORTH   CAROLINA, 

HOLDEN   AT 
JORGAJfTOlV,    July    10th,    1861. 


PRINTED   AT    THE    OFFICE    OF 

THE     CHURCH    INTELLIGENCE'S 
MDCCCLXI. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2013 


http://archive.org/details/extractfromannuaOOatki 


EXTRACT- 

* •>• * 

Brethren  of  the  Clergy  and  Laity  : 

The  time  and  place  at  which  we  are  assembled,  admonish 
us  that  strange  and  unexpected  events  have  occurred  since 
we  separated,  last  year.  We  then  adjourned  to  meet  again 
in  New  Berne,  on  the  third  Wednesday  in  May,  and  we 
now  find  ourselves  assembled  in  Morganton,  on  the  second 
Wednesday  in  July.  This  change  of  the  place  and  time  of 
holding  the  Convention,  was  directed  by  me,  in  consequence 
of  my  being  informed  by  the  Rector  of  the  Church  in  New 
Berne,  that,  hostilities  having  commenced  between  our  State 
and  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  many  of  the 
male  members  of  his  congregation  were  absent  on  military 
duty,  and  most  of  the  females  engaged  in  occupations  made 
necessary  by  the  same  state  of  things,  and  that,  consequently, 
they  were  not  in  a  condition  to  receive  the  Convention.  I 
then  thought  of  our  session  being  held  at  Raleigh,  or  Fay- 
etteville  ;  but  I  found  the  Rectors  of  both  these  Parishes 
were  hindered  by  the  same  difficulties,  and  as  it  was  impor- 
tant that  the  Convention  should  meet,  I  appointed  this  place 
as  being  accessible,  healthy,  and  as  free  from  political  dis- 
turbance as  any  in  the  State,  while,  as  this  body  had  never 
met  here  before,  I  trusted  that  its  doing  so  now,  might  be 
useful  to  the  Church. 

The  same  state  of  things  that  made  necessary  the  post- 
ponement of  our  meeting,  induced  me  to  issue  Forms  of 
Prayer  for  the  People  of  the  Confederate  States  and  for  the 
Soldiers  gone  to  War ;  and  also  caused  me  to  recommend  to 
the  Clergy,  in  the  use  of  the  Prayer  for  our  Civil  Rulers,  to 
make  their  petitions  for  the  Governor  of  this  Commonwealth, 
and  when  it  became  one  of  the  Confederate  States,  for  the 
President  of  those  States,  instead  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  he  having  ceased  to  be  our  Civil  Ruler,  and 


2 

ifhe  other  having  become  so.  I  felt  justified  in  making  thisr 
recommendation,  because  it  is  clearly  the  meaning  of  the 
Church,  to  pray  for  those  actually  in  authority  over  us,  as 
indeed  the  Scriptures  prescribe,  and  not  those  who  are,  at 
the  time,  exercising  an  authority  hostile  to  the  community 
in  which  we  live  and  labor.  And  it  seemed  clear  that  what 
was  thus  done  should  be  uniform  through  the  Diocese,  and 
should  be  done  under  the  direction  of  the  Bishop,  to  whom 
the  regulation  of  the  Liturgy  belongs,  by  the  principles  and 
practice  of  the  Primitive  Church. 

I  mention  this  to  show  that  I  did  irot  then,  as  I  do  not 
now,  entertain  the  view,  which  many  hold,  that  the  sever- 
ance of  the  National  Union  does,  of  itself,  and  without  any 
act  of  the  Church,  produce  a  disruption  of  the  bonds  which 
bind  our  Dioceses  together.  This  is  a  matter,  in  itself,  of 
so  much  importance,  and  is  likely  to  furnish  so  controlling 
and,  it  seems  to  me,  so  dangerous  a  precedent  for  the  future, 
that  it  ought  to  be  very  carefully  considered,  before  we 
adopt  the  conclusion  just  now  stated,  recommended,  though 
it  be,  by  persons  for  whom  we  all  have  the  sincerest  respect. 

The  question  is  not,  you  observe,  what  may  these  South- 
ern Dioceses,  rightfully  and  wisely,  do  ;  but,  what  is  the 
effect  on  them,  willing  or  unwilling,  of.  what  others  have 
done?  It  is  clearly  wise,  and  even  necessary,  that  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  shall  be 
greatly  modified,  perhaps  it  may  be  necessary  that  it  shall 
cease  to  exist  as  one  Church.  But,  that  is  not  the  matter 
before  us  now.  We  have  first  to  decide,  not  whether  we 
shall  modify  or  destroy  that  Church  but,  whether  there  is 
such  a  Church  now  in  existence.  If  the  Diocese  established 
in  the  States  which  have  seceded,  are  no  longer  a  part  of  the' 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  ;  are,  in- 
deed, no  longer  a  part  of  any  ecclesiastical  organization1: 
but  are  separate  and  independent,  each  of  the  other,  and 
each  of  the  rest  of  Christendom  ;  how  has'  this  very  im- 
portant change  been  brought  about  ?  Not  by  their  own  act : 
for  those  which  have  acted  in- recognition  of  their  Diocesan 


'isolation,  only  profess  to  recognize  an  existing  fact,  not  t© 
make  the  fact.  They  do  not  separate  from  the  other  Dio- 
ceses ;  they  declare  themselves  to  have  been  already  sepa^ 
rated  by  the  acts  of  the  States  within  whose  limits  they  have 
been  organized.  What  were  those  acts  ?  The  secessions  of 
these  States  from  the  Political  Union,  of  which  they  had 
previously  formed  a  part.  If,  then,  this  cause  produce  this 
effect  now,  it  will  produce  it  hereafter.  Take,  for  example, 
the  case  of  any  one  of  our.  Dioceses.  It  is  formed  within  a 
State,  the  population  of  which  is  generally  alien  to  our  Church, 
not  hostile,  perhaps,  but  indifferent,  not  recognizing  its 
authority,  of  course,  not  concerned  to  advance  its  growth^ 
or  to  preserve  its  principles.  Within  this  mass  of  popula- 
tion, most  of  whom  are  attached  to  some  form  of  Protestant 
Dissent,  some  of  whom  are  Eornan  Catholics,  a  few  of  whom 
are  Jews,  and  some  rejectors  of  all  revealed  religion,  we 
have  a  few  congregations,  amounting,  in  the  most  favored 
Dioceses,  to  not  a  tenth  of  the  whole  number  of  the  people, 
in  others  to  not  a  hundredth.  Does  the  action  of  such  a 
body  politic  determine,  ipso  facto,  without  the  Church  being 
consulted,  without  its  action,  without  any  expression  of  its 
will,  perhaps  against  its  will,  what  shall  be  its  relations  to 
its  sister  Dioceses  and,  through  them,  to  the  Churches  in 
alliance  with  our  own,  to  its  Missions  Foreign  and  Domestic, 
to  the  General  Seminary,  and  to  its  entire  Code  of  Canon 
Law,  other  than  that  which  is  merely  Diocesan  ?  And,  in 
coming  to  our  conclusions  on  this  subject,  two  things  must  be 
borne  in  mind.  First :  That  according  to  the  theory  that 
secession  in  the  State  produces  a  disruption  of  the  Church, 
each  Diocese  in  the  seceding  States  is  relegated  to  a  condition 
of  absolute  isolation  and  independence.  The  Diocese  of  North 
Carolina  is  no  more  united  to  that  of  South  Carolina,  than  that 
of  New  York,  or  of  London.  Each  stands  alone  in  Christen- 
dom; a  position  I  believe  to  be  without  precedent  in  Church 
History,  from  the  Apostles'  time  downwards,  except,  per- 
haps, when  the  ban  of  excommunication  was  laid  on  a  Dio- 
cese.     Its  results  must  be,   to   deprive  our   Bishops   and 


Delegates  of  their  rights  to  seats  in  the  General  Convention, 
in  the  Board  of  Missions,  and  in  the  Board  of  Trustees  of 
the  General  Seminary.  Another  of  its  results,  according  to 
the  view  generally  taken  among  us  of  Canon  Law,  not,  I 
admit,  my  own  view,  still  the  more  common  one — according 
to  this  view,  I  say,  another  result  of  the  secession  of  the 
States  would  be,  the  abrogation  and  repeal  of  all  the  Laws 
of  the  Church,  except  Diocesan  Canons,  and  that,  too, 
without  any  action  qf  the  Diocese.  For,  it  has  been  gen- 
erally thought  that,  our  Ecclesiastical  Independence  of 
England,  abrogated  the  authority  of  the  English  Canon 
Law  over  the  American  Church.  By  parity  of  reasoning,  it 
would  then  follow  that,  our  separation  from  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  abrogates  the  au- 
thority of  the  Constitution  and  Canons  of  that  Church  over 
us.  In  that  case,  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  use  of  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  is  binding  on  us,  for  that  is  made 
binding  by  Article  VIII.  of  the  Constitution  ol  the  General 
Church. 

In  what  confusion,  then,  are  we  left  ?  "Who  knows  what 
laws  we  have,  or  whether  we  have  any  laws  but  our  Local 
Canons.  And  all  this  is  imagined  to  have  been  brought 
about  by  a  political  measure,  as  to  which  the  Church  was 
not  consulted  and,  indeed,  could  not  well  be  consulted. 
Suppose  that  this  result  which  some  think  has  been  brought 
about  by  implication,  had  been  attempted,  avowedly  and 
expressly.  Suppose  that  any  Political  Body  in  North  Caro- 
lina had  passed  a  decree  which  undertook,  " propria  vigor e," 
to  separate  this  Diocese  from  every  other  in  Christendom,  to 
take  away  the  right  of  its  Bishop  and  Delegates  to  seats  in 
the  General  Convention,  the  Board  of  Missions,  and  the 
General  Seminary,  to  confiscate  its  interest  in  the  property 
held  by  these  bodies,  and  to  abrogate  all  its  most  solemn 
laws  and  regulations,  what  should  we  think  of  the  stupen- 
dous injustice  and  tyranny  of  such  an  ordinance.  No  one, 
probably,  would  maintain  that  it  was  binding  on  us,  without 
any  act,  or  vote,  or  thought,  or  will  of  our  own.     Yet,  shall 


wc  say  that,  what  could  not  be  done  directly,  has  been  done, 
indirectly?  Would  not  this  be,  to  make  tbe  Church  the 
mere  shadow  of  the  State,  its  slave,  and  not  its  fellow-. 
Worker  ;  that  State  withal,  not  being  in  union  with  the 
Church,  not  composed  of  the  same  individuals  as  the  Church, 
as  is  the  supposition  in  England-,  where  the  State  exercises 
so  much  power  over  the  Church  ;  but,  in  our  case,  the  State 
being  altogether  alien  from  the  Church,  and  acknowledging, 
in  no  degree,  its  claims,  or  authority.  Of  course,  I  know 
that  the  State  is  not  thinking  of  us,  does  not  wish  to  tyran- 
nize over  us,  or  to  exercise  any  power  over  us  ;  but,  the 
question  is,  does  it  really  exercise  this  prodigious  power,  by 
virtue  of  principles  and  facts  embodied  in  the  subject  itself. 
I  think,  it  does  not,  and  that  it  would  be  worse  for  the 
State,  as  well  as  the  Church,  if  it  did.  The  State,  then,  in 
taking  its  action,  instead  of  having  only  to  deliberate  on 
what  was  best  for  the  people  in  their  temporal  interests, 
would  find  this  other  and  most  perplexing  question  forced 
upon  it, — What  is  due  to  the  Church,  and  what  is  best  for 
it,  in  its  spiritual  character  and  relations  ? 

I  said,  that,  there  were  two  things  which  deserve  to  be 
considered  by  us,  in  making  up  our  judgment  on  this  mighty 
question.  The  first  I  have  stated.  The  second  is  this  : 
That,  if  Political  separation  do,  without  any  action  of  the 
Church,  produce  Ecclesiastical  Disruption,  we  lose  all  con- 
trol over  ourselves,  in  our  Church  Eelations,  for  the  future. 
Suppose  the  Dioceses  in  the  Confederate  States  form  an 
United  Church,  as,  no  doubt,  they  will,  and  that  one  of 
these  States  should  afterwards  secede  from  the  Confederacy;, 
then  the  Diocese,  in  that  State,  will  be  cut  off,  whether  she 
wish  it  or  no,  from  the  Southern  Church.  Then  the  Church, 
throughout  all  time,  will  have  her  relations  settled  for  her 
by  men  not  necessarily  of  her  Communion,  perhaps,  by  men 
hostile  to  her,  and  anxious  to  destroy  her.  Was  it  ever 
heard  before,  that  the  Church  of  Christ  was  under  such 
bondage  !  The  relations  of  Church  and  State  do,  beyond 
doubt,  sometimes  present  practical  difficulties.  But,  those 
difficulties  will  be  least  and  fewest,  if  we  adhere  rigidly  to 


the  great  principle  of  the  mutual  Independence  of  thesp  two 
societies.  This  is* the  American,  this  is  the  Scriptural  and 
primitive  principle,  which  equally  forbids  the  Church  to 
control  the  State,  as  Ultramontane  Papists  demand,  and  the 
State  to  control  the  Church,  as  has  been,  to  some  extent, 
permitted  in  England,  Church  and  State,  although  both 
are  appointed  by  God,  and  both  necessary  for  man,  are  yet 
entirely  distinct  organizations  ;  distinct  in  the  authority 
which  frames  them,  the  one  being  Human,  the  other  Divine  ; 
distinct  in  the  power  whichsecures  the  execution  of  their  laws, 
the  one  being  Force,  the  other  Conscience  ;  distinct  in  their 
objects,  those  of  the  one  being  Temporal  Happiness,  those 
pf  the  other  Eternal  Felicity,  Their  only  point  of  contact 
is  that  the  persons  whom  they  govern  are,  to  some  extent, 
although  by  no  means  entirely,  the  same;  the  members  of 
the  Church  being  all  citizens  of  the  State,  but  the  citizens 
of  the  State  being,  by  no  means,  all  members  of  the  Church. 
It  is  one  function  of  the  Church  to  uphold  the  State,  by 
its  Prayers,  and  by  insisting  on  obedience  to  it  as  a  Christian 
duty.  The  State  is  always  entitled  to  our  Prayers  and  our 
obedience,  unless  she  undertake  to  set  aside  the  Law  of 
Christ,  in  which  case,  we  must  obey  God  rather  than  man. 
But  the  State  has  a  light  to  form  her  own  government,  and 
then  the  Church,  in  that  State,  must  respect  and  sustain 
that  government.  If,  then,  we  individually  censured  the 
Acts  by  which  North  Carolina  seceded  from  the  American 
Union,  and  established  a  Government  for  herself,  and  after- 
wards adopted  the  Government  of  the  Confederate  States, 
Still,  as  a  Church,  we  must  have  acknowledged,  prayed  for, 
and  obeyed  that  Government ;  for,  as  to  us,  its  officers  are 
''the  powers  that  be,"  whom  St.  Paul  bids  us  obey. 
Happily,  however,  for  our  peace  of  mind,  we  have  had  no 
perplexing  questions  of  the  sort  to  settle.  By  the  time  the 
State  acted,  her  citizens  had  become  nearly  unanimous  in 
the  conviction  that  she  must  adopt  the  policy  which  she  has 
pursued.  The  duty  of  the  Church  in  this  Diocese,  to  the 
State,  is  then  clear.  The  only  question  is,  what  is  her  duty 
to  herself?  Is  she  to  regard  the  Ecclesiastical  system  of 
which  she  formed  a  part,  as  dissolved  by  the  act  of  the  State, 
without  any  action  of  her  own;  or,  is  she  to  consider  it  as 
still  subsisting,  and  liable  to  be  abolished,  or  modified,  as 
she,  after  deliberate  inquiry  and  consultation,  shall  see 
best?  This  is  a  question,  the  decision  of  which  involves  the 
right  to  property  of  considerable  amount,  and  what  is  in- 


1 

Comparably  more  important,  principles'  of  great  weight,  unci 
liable  to  frequent  application  in  the  future. 

So  far  as  I  understand  the  reasoning  of  those  respected 
brethren,  from  whose  view  I  am  compelled  to  dissent,  it  alt 
rests  upon  this  notion,  that  conditions  which,  if  they  existed 
at  the  time,  would  prevent  an  union  of  Dioceses,  will,  if  they 
should  subsequently  arise,  destroy  that  union.  These 
brethren  seem  to  have  a  chain  of  propositions  of  this  sort 
to  pass  through  their  minds.  First :  That  the  Confederate 
States  are  now  a  foreign  country  to  the  United  States.  This 
I  grant.  Second :  That  a  Diocese  in  a  foreign  country 
could  not  be  received  into  union  with,  the  Church  in  the 
United  States.  This  is  not  so  clear;  The  Eight  Reverend 
Doctors  Boone  and  Payne  are  Bishops  of  that  Church,  exer- 
cising Episcopal  functions,  and  possessing  jurisdiction  under 
its  authority  and  liable  to  its  discipline.-  If  Dioceses  were 
established  at  Shanghai  and  Cape  Palmas,  I  see  no  hin- 
drance, either  in  our  Constitution  or  Church  principles,  to 
these  Dioceses  being  received  into  union  with  the  Church 
in  the  United  States.  Her  name  of  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  docs  not  confine  her  field  to' 
the  United  States ;  otherwise,  she  would  be  condemned,  by 
her  very  Constitution,  to  perpetual  sterility  of  all  mis- 
sionary fruit.  And  if  she  may  rightfully  have,  as  she 
actually  has,  Bishops  and  other  ministers  and  congregations, 
out  of  the  United  States,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why  they  may 
not  be  arranged  in  the  form  of  Dioceses,  if  that  form  should 
be  more  convenient  than  the  present  one,  as  indeed  it  must 
be,  if  our  Missions  shall  go  on  to  prosper.  The  name  of 
the  Church  of  England  does  not  hinder  that  Church  from 
having  Dioceses  beyond  the  bounds  of  Great  Britain.  But, 
if  we  grant  that  a  Diocese  in  a  foreign  country  could  not  be 
received  into  union,  with  the  Church  in  the  United  States, 
it  does  not  follow  that  if  the  State  in  which  that  Diocese  is 
established,  having  once  been  a  part  of  the  United  States, 
became  a  foreign  country,  the  Church  necessarily  ceases  to 
be  a  part  of  the  Church  of  the  United  States.  To  suppose 
this,  is  to  confound  conditions  precedent  with  conditions 
subsequent,  and  they  are  very  far  from  being  the  same.- 
Take  this  example.  By  Article  V.  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  Church  in  the  United  States,  a  new  Diocese  cannot  be? 
formed  within  the  limits  of  an  existing  one,  without  the 
consent  of  the  Bishop  and  Convention  of  the  latter.  Sup- 
pose such  consent  given,  and  the  Diocese  formed,  and  theri 


8 

'the  consent  withdrawn,  nd  one  would  contend  that,  thereby; 
1the  new  Diocese  was  dissolved.  The  consent  is  necessary 
us  a  condition  precedent  to  the  formation  of  the  Diocese ; 
hut  is  ndt  necessary  as  a  condition  subsequent  to  its  forma- 
tion, in  order  to  its  continuance.  So,  to  be  within  the 
United  States  may  be  necessary  as  a  condition  precedent  to 
the  union  of  a  Diocese  with  the  Church  of  the  United  States, 
but  may  riot  be  necessary  to  a  continuance  of  that  union. 
Again,  to  make  a  new  Diocese  within  the  limits  of  an  exist- 
ing one,  requires  fifteen  self-supporting  Parishes,  and  thirty 
in  the  old;  Suppose  this  condition  to  be  complied  with,  and 
the  number  of  such  Parishes,  afterwards,  to  fall  below  the 
assigned  limit  in  either  Diocese,  are  both^  or  is  either 
dissolved  thereby?  Surely  not.  Yet  the  union  could  not 
begin  to  exist  under  the  circumstances  in  which j  when  once 
formed,  i,t  may  contiririe  to  exist. 

While  then,  I  see  insuperable  objections  to  the  acceptance 
of  the  Theory  that;  the  secession  of  the  State  ddes,  without 
any  act  of  the  (jhiirch^  produce  a  disruption  of  the 
Church,  I  see  no  plausible  argument  to  incline  one  to  accept 
it.  At  the  same  tiirie,  some  very  important  changes  in  our 
relations  with  the  Northern  Dioceses  will  be  necessary,  and 
it  may  be  best  to  form  an  entirely  new  Ecclesiastical  system; 
This  ought  to  be  done  with  the  utmost  possible  forethought 
and  deliberation.  Changes  in  the  Liturgy,  made  necessary 
by  our  altered  circumstances,  may  be  made,  I  conceive, 
under  the  authority  of  the  Bishops,  as  in  the  case  of  services 
for  Missionary  congregations,  and  of  third  services,  and  the 
like. 

Whether  we  shall  be  represented,  or  ndt,  in  the  next 
General  Convention,  is  altogether  a  question  addressed  to 
bur  discretion.  However  decided,  it  will  not  affect  our  rela- 
tions with  that  body.  It  ought  to  be  decided  after  consult- 
ation with  the  Bishops  and  Delegates  of  all  the  Dioceses 
within  the  seceded  States,  who  will  meet,  I  am  informed; 
in  a  short  time,  for  the  purpose  of  deliberation  on  this  and 
kindred  subjects.  I  recommend  to  the  Convention,  the 
appointment  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Delegates  to  represent  the 
Diocese  at  this  meeting. 

And  when  the  Congress  of  the  Confederate  States,  which 
has  now  become  our  supreme  Legislature,  shall  meet,  I 
recommend  to  the  Clergy  to  offer,  in  behalf  of  that  body, 
the  Prayer  heretofore  in  use  for  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States; 


aj* 


> 


.■*»  «8M*- 


lD 


H 


S  ss 


• 


'..-■s-\ 


1  fiL; 


